OPINION

Kimberly Denise Poole appeals her twenty-one month sentence for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

On appeal, Poole claims only that the district court erred by denying her a reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2000). We review a district court’s determination as to whether a defendant is entitled to such a reduction with great deference for clear error. United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996).

Because there was evidence that Poole failed to appear at her sentencing hearing and moved without notifying her federal probation officer, in violation of her conditions of release, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly erred in its determination. A defendant who pleads guilty and truthfully admits her conduct may still lose the adjustment through other conduct that is inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility. USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n. 3).

Accordingly, we affirm Poole’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.